Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Harvey took a lot away from us, but it couldn't take away who we are as Texans. It has shown our resilience and brought our communities closer together as we rebuild.

I am very proud of our volunteers and first responders who have shown hospitality and heroism to support our neighbors in need. When disaster struck, Texans came from across the State to help our communities rebuild and recover from this storm.

In my district, central Texans set up evacuation shelters and donated clothing and other necessary supplies. Our soldiers at Fort Hood and our local fire and rescue teams headed southeast to assist in lifesaving recovery missions because that is what Texans do: we come together to support one another.

I know we will continue to work together as we rebuild after Harvey and in the face of anything that comes our way.

By the way, a great big Texas thank-you to all our neighbors from across the United States who also came to help.

Our hearts go out to those recovering disaster areas in Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and all other communities in need of help. Let's do it together.

God bless Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental bill for Hurricane Harvey relief. This bill will provide $15.3 billion in emergency funding, including $7.4 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $7.4 billion for Community Development Block Grants to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and $350 million to support the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan Program to assist small business and homeowners.

This supplemental bill is not only a critical first step to provide basic needs of food, shelter, and water for those in immediate need, but it also provides initial funding to begin the process of rebuilding and recovery for those communities devastated by Hurricane Harvey.

Further resources and hard work will be required. I will continue to work closely alongside my colleagues and the Appropriations Committee to meet the present and emerging needs of our neighbors across the Southeast. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by these devastating storms.

This bill addresses the urgent needs of those affected by Hurricane Harvey. It sends a powerful message to all that we are here for them and we will be working hard for them throughout the recovery. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage a vote on this bill.

As an aside, I grew up in Houston, Texas. I was born there, I grew up there. I remember floods, but I never remember floods that washed away people's homes and their livelihood. This is a once-in-a-lifetime situation down there, may we all pray, and it is time to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental funding for Hurricane Harvey relief. H. Res. 502 totals $7.85 billion in emergency funding, including $7.4 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. This supplemental funding is a necessary first step toward assisting our communities in immediate need.

However, rebuilding and recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey will continue to require further resources and really hard work. I will continue to work closely alongside my colleagues in the Texas delegation, the Louisiana delegation, and the Appropriations Committee to meet the needs of our neighbors in the southeastern part of our State.

My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this devastating storm.

Colleagues, I encourage each and every one of you to vote for this. H. Res. 502 is focused on addressing the immediate needs of those affected by Hurricane Harvey. It sends them a powerful message: that we are here and we are here for them, and we will be working hard for them throughout this recovery.

Just this morning, I saw another newsman standing waist-deep in water in Houston as it continues to recede. Let's cast our vote properly and start the recovery for the southeastern part of Texas and the western part of Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Lowey for all the work that we did together on this bill. The whole bill is a good bill. It deserves this House's support.

But I am here to present the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018, which, in turn, deserves your support. This is a good bill that is essentially for the security of our Nation. It not only funds vital security and law enforcement capabilities, but it also restores funding for critical Federal assistance grant programs and disaster relief.

As importantly, it provides the oversight essential to ensure the Department's actions are in accordance with congressional intent.

Let's look at it. For CBP, $1.6 billion for 74 miles of border wall construction that was previously included in the Make America Secure Appropriations Act that was passed in July.

In addition to the funding for the wall construction, this bill will fund additional border patrol agents and virtually all of the technology, infrastructure, and assets needed for the security of our borders.

For ICE, this bill funds 44,000 detention beds; 10,000 more beds than were funded in 2016; almost 4,700 more than the number funded in 2017.

This bill will strengthen ICE's ability to enforce immigration laws and conduct investigations into human trafficking, child exploitation, and transnational crime.

For TSA, although the bill does not include the proposed increase in aviation security fees, it fully funds required transportation security screeners.

For the Coast Guard, all major acquisition programs are funded at the required level: the polar icebreaker, the offshore patrol cutter, and the fast response cutter.

For FEMA, the bill fully funds the request for disaster assistance. It restores nearly $940 million to the Federal assistance for first responder grants and education training exercises. Additionally, the bill fully funds all cybersecurity acquisition requirements at the requested levels, fully funds the Secret Service, and fully funds E- Verify.

In conclusion, my colleagues, this bill strengthens the security of our Nation. It also sends a powerful message that if you break our Nation's laws and cross the border illegally, you will suffer the consequences: apprehension and a guaranteed stay in detention.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), my colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing up this issue.

Last week, FEMA was forced to restrict obligations for past disasters to prioritize funding for immediate lifesaving efforts in response to Hurricane Harvey.

The supplemental funding bill that passed the House this morning will enable FEMA to lift these restrictions and resume funding for long-term recovery efforts, such as those in North Carolina and other parts of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 500, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I rise to offer en bloc No. 3 as part of the consideration of Division E of H.R. 3354. A list of amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal to cut ICE funding for enforcement of immigration laws and removal of those here illegally will endanger the safety of the American people and convey to bad actors that the rule of law no longer exists in the United States, leading to increased border crossings and even more illegal aliens in the United States.

Cutting funding for beds will lead to the release of criminal and other removable aliens into communities across the country and weaken the United States border security. I ask you to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Texas, I know his heart is in the right place, but I have real concerns about the cost and the utilization of body cameras.

We know that you have to preserve evidence. And once you have opened this door that there are expected to be body cameras on officers, then not only do you have to preserve every piece of film or production that comes out of that camera as a potential piece of evidence, and if you take that and multiply it times the number of incidents that are going to occur as we go through a year, and then multiply that times however many years this agency lasts, you are talking about storing millions of gigs or whatever they are that have to be preserved to preserve potential evidence that could be used both by the defense and the prosecution.

And then in a case where there isn't a body camera, it is going to be a jury argument that can be very effectively made by the defense about why isn't there a body camera where there is a policy of having body cameras?

But the real issue that I have with this is the cost of preserving the record continuously by law enforcement. I think people haven't thought this out to what kind of additional cost this is going to be as you spread this out over the lifetime of an agency and all the agents that work for that agency.

I know the reasons why people think body cameras are a good idea, and they fit that. But does it justify the storage cost that is going to be required to preserve the evidence that is manufactured by the body camera?

That is the question I think we ought to consider, and that is the reason I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand what my colleague wants: the 45,000 agents that could potentially be acquiring these cameras. Because the first thing you are going to have the first time you go before a judge and you use one of these body cameras in one case, the defense is going to be wanting to know why you are not using them in every case. They are going to be setting up a defense of the fact that the officers failed to meet their duty to preserve the record.

So you take just 45,000 and 1 year of contacts. Granted, his $10 million isn't going to get all of those guys cameras, but you started down the road to putting a camera on 45,000 agents. And then you have to store everything they produce of any contact that they have for the potential use in evidence by one or the other side in a legal proceeding. That is what concerns me.

Joe Kelly is a good marine and a good Secretary, and I am sorry he is not with us anymore. But the reality is, if you sat in the courtroom and watched the preservation of evidence, you know this has the potential, both for law enforcement and for us, to be a mushroom that explodes in nuclear proportions. That is the only reason I raise this issue.

I know the issues that they are trying to address, and they need to be addressed. I am concerned about the fact that once you start down that road, you are constitutionally required to preserve evidence, and that will be costly. I will leave that up to our colleagues as to how they feel about that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I only want to lay out that there is a potential very large cost once this door is opened. That is my opposition to this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard.

Mr. Chair, the proposal to cut ICE funding for enforcement of immigration laws and removal of those here illegally will not only endanger the safety of the American people, it will also convey to bad actors that the rule of law no longer exists in the United States, leading to increased border crossings and a growing overall illegal alien population.

Cutting funding for beds will lead to the release of criminal and other removable aliens into communities across the country and weaken the United States border security.

The hiring of additional ICE agents is needed to protect our communities by preventing terrorism and reducing crime through the vigorous enforcement of immigration and custom laws. Restricting this hiring compromises ICE's law enforcement mission, jeopardizing homeland security and public safety.

Interior immigration enforcement is indispensable to national security and public safety. It cannot be separated from border security. A successful border control and immigration system must be supported by the enforcement of all pertinent laws.

Adding funds to procure another polar icebreaker, while a noble idea, is simply not practical at this time. The Coast Guard is still in the early stages of design and will not be ready to procure the first icebreaker until late fiscal year 2019 at the earliest. The funds will be unexecutable and, therefore, a waste of limited resources that we have.

In addition, if you discuss with the border patrol about the biggest deterrent we have, it is the threat of detention.

Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, agree with Ms. Roybal- Allard for the need for an icebreaker, that is not in dispute here, but to cut the beds to the proposed 30,000 that she said, in 2017, our number was 39,000 and change, and we have been over that this year, so we still have a real need for these beds, and that need, as I have stated before, is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Castro.

Mr. Chair, I made the statement previously when we discussed this that this could quickly escalate. We are escalating again by 19,000 more people who would ultimately be required to have cameras.

Once again, without getting into what I just talked about, this is going to be a very costly item. We have something called chain of custody on evidence. ICE agents deal with some very serious issues, felony issues under Federal law. They have got a wide jurisdiction, one of the widest jurisdictions of any agency, even wider than some like the FBI.

So, once again, now that chain of custody on that camera, where that camera information passes from hand to hand, has to be kept in addition to the evidence so that if you are going to present it in court, you can prove the chain of custody. You just enhanced and expanded the amount of costs that it is going to take for an agent to go to trial.

I know this is a very popular idea all over the country, because it has been very much supported by the media, but I really, in good faith, believe that people have not considered the evidentiary problems they are going to create for themselves by the presence of these cameras.

We will find out fairly quickly as these cameras proliferate what the cost is going to be and what the information required is going to be by the courts. And maybe I am overanticipating, but just now, we have gone from $44,000; we have added another $19,000, just in our agency. Now, multiply that times every law enforcement entity in the United States and it becomes an astronomical expense and something we need to think about, and think about hard.

So, for those reasons, not because I don't think it is a good idea to have congeniality between arresting officer and defendant or being able to prove where there is abuse. I agree with all those things.

But I think you are creating a monster evidentiarywise as you go forward with body cameras. We tried them back in the seventies, and they very quickly found that they were not a good idea, but I guess we will try them again.

Anyway, for those reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I certainly understand the example that the gentleman gave about officers planting dope, and it certainly did work.

I can tell you, in my 20 years on the bench, we have had cameras on the dashboard of DPS troopers' cars for 10 years, 20 years maybe, I don't know, maybe the whole time I was there. But I have seen at least 15 of those prove the guilt of the defendant by his actions in front of those cameras. So it is not just to catch dirty cops; it also catches people in criminal action.

By the way, the action of that officer was a criminal action so, therefore, you have to preserve the evidence. My point is made by your very argument. You have to preserve the evidence. If you lose the evidence, you are going to lose the prosecution, and so you are going to have to keep it secure. If it passes from one hand to the other hand, it has to be tracked in a chain of custody.

If it is secure on the--there is going to have to be some evidence of the security of whatever web or whatever it is that it is on, or the cloud, that that is a secure cloud so that someone can't have messed with the evidence while it is on the cloud. All of that is potential argument against conviction in a criminal case, and those ICE agents deal with serious criminal cases.

I don't think people have thought it out. If they have, then that is fine. Let's spend that money. But it is going to be astronomical if we do it for every law enforcement agent in the country.

I continue my opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to oppose, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, once again, as I said before of the gentlewoman's amendment cutting beds, that that will weaken the United States' border security, and the hiring of additional ICE agents is needed to protect our communities, prevent terrorism, reduce crime through vigorous enforcement of immigration and customs laws.

Successful border control and immigration systems must be supported by enforcement of pertinent laws. This bill recommends $240 million for four fast-response cutters, the same as the amount requested. The program is on schedule and on budget, and there is no need to accelerate the procurement of additional ships. We have been building those on time without flaws now for 4 years at that same rate. We are building a lot of fast-response cutters very quickly.

We have, now, a new program for the offshore patrol cutter, which the first of the contracts have been let, and that is in the process of being built, and we have a projection for multiple of those cutters.

Taking away from our ability to detain people who have broken the law is not a good resource for growing a program that is already very robust and very effective and has put online multiple fast-response cutters.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, even if this money should be moved and the gentleman's amendment be approved, it wouldn't mean that any more fast-response cutters would be built in this calendar year.

I am fairly certain that the commandant of the Coast Guard would say that we have been very robust and very effective at producing fast- response cutters, and I believe that the detention beds is a deterrent for those coming across the border and for those violating the law as an important part of the defense of the borders and the people of the United States.

Therefore, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns regarding this amendment. However, I agree there is a gap in our Nation's icebreaking capability, and I strongly support the Coast Guard's icebreaking program. For that reason, I will not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mrs. Torres.

Mr. Chair, estimating the required number of operations and detention beds is not exact science. This reprogramming a party is essential to be able to deal with emergent and critical operation needs, like surges we have seen in 2014 and 2016.

Without sufficient funding for beds, ICE will be forced to release criminal and other illegal aliens into communities across the country and weaken the security of the United States. The proposal to restrict ICE's ability to reprogram funding for detention beds would not only endanger the safety of the American people, but it will also convey to bad actors that the United States will not detain illegal aliens, leading to increased border crossings and growing overall illegal alien operations in the United States.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 79 printed in part B of House Report 115-295, which was adopted as part of the amendments en bloc, be modified by the modification placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I adopt all of his arguments that he has made.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, over half of the ICE detention population is housed in privately owned and operated detention facilities. Neither ICE nor State and local detention facilities can provide the number of beds required to house the detained population that we have today. Without the capacity provided by contracts with private detention facilities, ICE will be forced to dramatically scale back interior enforcement and, more seriously, release thousands of dangerous criminal aliens from custody.

Eliminating private facilities will require a significant expansion to ICE's capacity that, according to estimates, will exceed $1.3 billion and could be as much as $5 billion to $6 billion.

I also note that my colleague in the minority considers detention standards to be of vital importance, yet the majority of the facilities that meet the highest and most stringent detention standards are the very same contract facilities this language would eliminate.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that the minority has a very good tag team match going here. The previous amendment would eliminate, if it passes, all of the privately owned facilities, leaving us with, by the gentlewoman's own statement, 3,500 beds for detainees; whereas, our total population today ranges from 35,000 to 40,000 people that are detained, which would mean all those people would have to be released or placed in some kind of alternative of which the no-show for that alternative is horrendous.

This kind of restriction makes no sense. Even though there is nobody planning to build ICE facilities right now, to restrict the government from a possible need, should that need arise--I remind you that in 2014, in the month of August, 78,000 children came across the border, and an equal number or more of a child with a parent came across the border in the Laredo sector alone.

So we have real needs that need to be met, and quite honestly, this amendment ties the hands and everybody gets turned loose. I very much oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what Ms. Roybal-Allard just stated was true, but I rise in support of this gentleman's amendment because it is time the agencies and departments fully comply, and this amendment attempts to achieve that effort. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule, which makes an amendment that I offered part of the security package by the adoption of this rule.

I want to acknowledge the frustration of my colleagues at adding funds to construct three barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Like many of you, I would have preferred a package which included all 12 appropriations bills. However, this is the process that we are going forward with, and, of course, I am supportive of it.

Despite my reservations about the process, I believe that each of these three projects included in this amendment are absolutely necessary for national security.

The funds that are in what we call the ``wall'' part of this bill are 28 miles of levee wall in Hidalgo County, Texas.

Many people have asked me what that is. Mostly everybody knows a levee is a big mound of dirt that keeps the water from flooding. Well, it is a big pile of dirt with a 20-foot wall on one side made of concrete to keep it from washing out and a 6-foot fence on top of that. It serves for water retention, as well as defending our borders.

The funds pay for the construction of 32 miles of bollard wall in Starr County, Texas, which is Rio Grande City and that area. Bollard fence is a bunch of steel poles about the size of a small corner post on a cedar post fence. They rise up about 20 feet in the air and have a cement base.

Also, the funds pay for 14 miles of wall in San Diego, replacing an existing 14 miles of wall or fence with a better product because it has been deteriorating since the 1990s, when it went in.

That is what is in this bill.

Many people claim it isn't necessary to put up barriers between the border of the United States and Mexico. They say the border is more secure than it has ever been, apprehensions are way down, and that border walls do not prevent people crossing. In fact, I disagree, and they do, too.

It is a fact that apprehensions are down relative to the mid-2000s. In fact, in the late nineties, in San Diego, before their barrier fences were built, 500,000 people stormed across that border. Last year, the number is 25,000. That is a substantial reduction.

More than a million people crossed our Southern border every year in the early-2000s. However, today, we continue to apprehend certain people, and it is down to 200,000 a year on the border. That is a substantial number.

What concerns me more than the number of apprehensions is the fact that if migrants are crossing the border illegally, then so are terrorists, drug smugglers, and human traffickers.

Mr. Speaker, many Members of this body probably remember illegal immigrants rushing the border in San Diego back in the 1990s. Illegal immigrant entries decreased significantly, as I said. The number of illegal crossings fell, crime rates declined, commerce increased, and neighborhoods became safe all because of fences and barriers on the border.

The Border Patrol cautions that illegal border migration seeks the path of least resistance and that these commendable results do not mean that the flow has steadied. It has simply moved to another unprotected place like the Rio Grande Valley in my home State of Texas. We want to change that dynamic.

This amendment is important because it is committed to dedicated men and women who stand in harm's way on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members' support for this bill and for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this polygraph waiver provision that is proposed here is a darn good idea that is a long time overdue from happening. The reality is the hiring process of the Border Patrol, and, in fact, I would argue almost everything under my jurisdiction in Homeland Security, is as slow as molasses in the wintertime. It just doesn't move.

Meanwhile, we have got skilled law enforcement people applying, skilled former veterans with high clearances who are applying for these jobs and being stumbled by the lack of polygraph operators available to do it.

This is a choice and a right choice of setting a priority for those people who have served, proving their worth, and are asking to be part of the defense of our national borders. I support this wholeheartedly. I support Chairwoman McSally's concept here. It is great. It starts a new way of doing things. We need more than anything else in the Federal Government--if a new way of doing things is the right way, we ought to be doing it. Nobody is going to keep from checking on people. You can still make them take a polygraph if you run across something you don't like. But it is a good idea whose time has come. Let's be modern Americans and have new ideas and make those new ideas work.

I commend everyone here in support of this. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I think, for a change, government is making a good start at new ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the extraordinary work of my friend Alan McGraw, mayor of my home of Round Rock, Texas. On May 25, he will step down after three successful terms leading this growing and dynamic Central Texas city.

Mayor McGraw's devotion to public service has made Round Rock a great place to live and work. He focused on bringing jobs to the area, prioritized keeping citizens safe through support of public safety officials, and improved transportation and quality of life for the citizens of Round Rock. From planned resorts to a downtown revitalization project to a state-of-the-art convention center, Round Rock has become a city on the cutting edge of urban development.

Round Rock has benefitted from Mayor McGraw's love of the outdoors. His connection with the owners of Bass Pro Shops brought the retail giant to Round Rock, further strengthening the local economy. McGraw's forward-thinking leadership resulted in the construction of the Round Rock Sports Center which has entrenched the City as the Sports Capital of Texas, further diversifying Round Rock's position in sports tourism.

While effective city leadership isn't easy, Texans aren't afraid of a challenge and Mayor McGraw has embraced every opportunity, no matter how daunting, to improve Round Rock. He shepherded the city through recent economic downturns and has worked tirelessly to inject realism to regional transit planning. His leadership has been a reflection of the very best values of the Lone Star State.

While McGraw isn't tired of the privilege of leading Round Rock, he knows that everything

has its season and that it's time to allow the next generation of leaders to take the stage. Retirement from office won't give him much idle time. He'll fill his days at his law practice, start up an archery retail business, and spend time with his beloved wife Kathy and two children.

Mayor Alan McGraw has done what all public servants are elected to do: put the needs of the people first. He's led Round Rock to new heights and positioned my home town to continue its progress into a bright future. I salute his leadership, congratulate him on his retirement, and wish him nothing but the best for the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Major Efrain Reyna Jr. of the United States Army for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the Nation. After four years of faithful service in the nation's capital, Major Reyna will transition from his present assignment as a Budget Liaison at Department of the Army Headquarters to civilian life back in the Great State of Texas.

Major Reyna has demonstrated the invaluable service that Army Congressional Liaisons provide Congress. He enabled countless Members and staff in developing a better understanding of Army policies, operations, and requirements. His first-hand knowledge of military needs, culture, and tradition were of tremendous benefit to Congressional offices. Prior to service as a Liaison, Major Reyna was assigned to my office as a Military Fellow

where he quickly became an indispensable asset to my team. His performance was superb and he earned my utmost respect. His ability to build relationships and create opportunities aided me greatly in securing legislative language in support of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting victims, an effort that had been a priority of mine for 5 years.

A native Texan from the Rio Grande Valley, Major Reyna is a distinguished military graduate from Saint Mary's University where he earned a commission in the Army Aviation branch. He served with the 101st Airborne Division as a Chinook helicopter pilot and platoon leader. From here, he deployed on his first combat tour to Afghanistan as a flight platoon leader in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Efrain also served with the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, ``the Great Place.'' While there, he served in various leadership positions to include Chinook company commander and support battalion operations officer. Efrain conducted his second combat deployed to Afghanistan with the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade as a company commander.

His dedication to excellence has not gone unnoticed. Major Reyna's awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and numerous others. He has earned the Senior Aviator Badge, Ranger Tab, Airborne Wings, and Air Assault Wings. Efrain is a graduate of the Marine Expeditionary Warfare School. He also completed a Master's Degree from George Washington University during his time here, demonstrating his commitment as a Warrior and a Scholar.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize the selfless service of Major Efrain Reyna and the support and dedication of his wife Kelly Ann and their two sons, Isaac Lee Reyna and Zachary Miers. I wish them the very best as they complete over twelve years of honorable service to our great nation and proceed to the next chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The Homeland Security division of this bill contains $42.4 billion to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This amount includes $1.5 billion in additional funding as proposed by the President in his budget amendment. That is the largest boost to border security funding in nearly a decade. This bill is a sizable down payment on our promise to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and keep our citizens safe.

This bill includes 39,324 detention beds, an increase of more than 5,000 over the previous number. This additional capacity will allow our immigration officials to end catch and release once and for all. Forty miles of upgraded fencing are in this bill. This upgraded barrier will stem the flow of drugs, smugglers, and illegal immigrants across our border, and give our Border Patrol agents the time they need to make an arrest.

Also included is $87 million of enhanced surveillance and radars so Border Patrol agents can more effectively detect illegal crossings, 26 miles of new road construction, and 758 miles of road improvements. I hear time and again from our agents on the border that they not only need to detect illegal crossings, they must reach them to arrest them. These roads will literally pave the way toward that effort.

Here in Washington, people talk about border security and immigration. In Texas, we live it every day. We must get this problem under control. I am confident that with the support of President Trump and my colleagues in the House and Senate, we will bring sanity and the rule of law back to our borders. This bill is a vital step. I urge its passage.

I thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, my ranking member, and both the majority and minority staffs for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Gary L. Janacek, CEO of Scott & White Employees Credit Union. This esteemed and valued citizen of the Temple, Texas area has made real and lasting impacts on his community and set a high standard of excellence in his profession.

Gary truly embodied the Credit Union's slogan, ``people helping people,'' throughout his career and in all aspects of life. Throughout his nearly fifty years of service, Gary's work has been vital in helping the Credit Union succeed in serving their communities and achieving their goals.

When formally announcing his retirement to the board of directors and staff last summer, Gary said, ``It's been a distinct privilege and honor to serve our members for the past 39 years. I have been richly blessed with a visionary board of directors and dedicated staff in serving the needs of our membership.'' That Gary chose to salute those around him rather than himself comes as no surprise to those who've been able to work alongside this exceptional leader.

Gary's work hasn't gone unnoticed. He served in numerous leadership positions within the state and national credit union movement. In September of 2003, Texas Governor Rick Perry appointed Gary to serve on the Texas Credit Union Commission. He was soon chosen to Chair this commission's important work. In 2015, Gary was inducted into the Credit Union House Hall of Leaders. His work positively impacted countless people across Texas and nationwide.

Retirement is to be celebrated and enjoyed. It is not the end of a career, but rather the beginning of a new adventure. I heartily salute Gary Janacek's work and contributions to his community. I'm sure I echo the thoughts of all when I wish him the best in both his retirement and all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is hurting Texas families, as the Speaker knows. The law has led to higher costs, fewer choices, and less access to the quality health care that is what the American people deserve.

Currently, over 70 percent of the counties nationwide have two or fewer insurers. Texas could see as much as a 48 percent rate increase in 2017. This is proof that ObamaCare is failing.

Hardworking Americans and their families have been begging for an end to the ObamaCare burden. It is up to this House to provide one.

House Republicans have forged a new path to patient-centered health care. Our plan looks out for the most vulnerable and allows for Americans to choose a plan that best suits their healthcare needs.

I am committed to repealing the broken promises of ObamaCare and replacing them with health care that works for Texas families.

Mr. Speaker, while January 1967 brought record- breaking snowstorms to Chicago, Texas had temperatures in the mid-70s. This was perfect for Ernest and Joan Rister of Round Rock, Texas, who joined hands on January 22, 1967 at St. Cyril Methodist Catholic Church in Granger, Texas to become husband and wife.

Decades have passed and the Risters are as devoted to one another as the day they wed. They recently celebrated their 50th anniversary with over 400 guests honoring their Czech and German roots. All in attendance celebrated the Risters' longevity and deep love for one another.

They met in grade school while living in Granger, TX and started dating their freshman year. These two high school sweethearts have been inseparable ever since. Following their wedding, Ernest graduated from Southwestern University in Georgetown and served in the United States Marine Corps. They returned to Texas and moved to Round Rock in 1975, living in the same house ever since.

Ernest currently works as a research chemist and Joan is a retired real estate appraiser. They love the outdoors, gardening, hunting, and fishing. They especially enjoy spending time with their son Ernest Lee Rister, III and his wife Annie, daughter Shelley and her husband Malcolm Middlebrook, and two grandchildren Camryn and Zachary Middlebrook. There's no doubt the Risters have built a happy life together.

Marriages like the Risters are the foundations of one of our most cherished institutions and give us all an ideal to which we can aspire. Their undying love for one another makes both Texas and our nation strong. I congratulate Joan and Ernest on 50 years together and wish them the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are here hoping to end the continuing resolution on the Department of Defense, and I rise in support of the bill we are debating today.

We all know too well that continuing resolutions are unacceptable burdens on the least and the greatest of our DOD assets, our Members, and civilians at a time of unprecedented threats to our Nation. I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairwoman Granger for bringing this bill to the floor and for their unwavering commitment to the men and women in uniform, which will continue under their leadership in the future.

I also thank this committee for fully funding an increase of Active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers. I am also co-chair of the Army Caucus, and providing them with the modern equipment and training necessary to keep them alive and the greatest fighting force on Earth is very important to the defense of our Nation.

We have more that we need to consider.

Army Vice Chief of Staff Daniel Allyn recently told the House Armed Services Committee that our Army requires modernization equipment to win decisively, but today we are outraged, outgunned, and outdated. At the present time, he says that only three of the Army's 58 brigade combat teams are ready to fight. It is crucial, and I urge my colleagues to support this appropriations bill and fully fund our armed services.